UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA Y O LAN D A G IB S O N
- M IC H A E LS , : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 06-1940 (RMU) : v. : Document Nos.: 98, 100 : SHE I L A C . B AI R e t al

. , : : D e f e n d an t s . :

M EM OR

AN DU M OR

DE R This matter is befor e the c ourt on two motions. The first is plaintiff’s motion under F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 60 (b ), se e kin g re lie f f ro m an o rd e r gra

nti ngthe de fe nd ants ’ mot ion dis mis s a s c on c e de d a

nd dis mis sin g the a c tio n. Th e c ourt de nie s th e mot ion

be c a us e it does not satisfy

the re quirements for

relief under Rule 60( b). The se cond is a motion filed by plaintiff’s re tained counse l, seekingto withdraw a s attorney . The c ourt denies this motion beca use it does not comply

with the require ments of L ocal Civil Rule 83.6. Plaintiff failed to timely

file a r esponse to the de fenda nts’ motion to di smiss or for
summa ry jud g me nt. On

July 16 , 2 00 8, the c ourt

g ra nte d th e pla int if

f a n e xten sio n o f t ime un til August 1, 2008 to file an opposition. On Aug ust 12, 2008, eleven da y s after the plaintiff’s
re sp on se wa s d

ue , th e c ourt

e nte re d a n o rd e r gra

nti nga s c on c e de d th e de fe nd a nts ’ m oti on

to dis mis s. Or de r ( Au g . 1 2, 20 08 ). Th at sa me da y , th e pla int if

f s ou g ht a fu rt he r e xten sio n o f t ime indicating that “Plaintiff did not rec eive notice of th[e] minute order” setting Aug ust 1, 2008 as the de a dli ne fo r f

ili ngan o pp os iti on . Pl .’ s Me m. i n O pp ’n to D e f. ’s Sup pl. Me m. a

t 2; se e als o Min. Order

(Jul y 16, 2008). The submission did not address the mer its of the defe ndants’ motion to dismi ss.2

In light of the plaintiff’s submission, the court issued a ne w memora ndum order va cating the memora

ndum order issued e arlier that day and addr essing the plaintiff’s ne wly proff ere d
rea sons for dela

y . The c ourt deter

mined that the plaintiff’s submission was insufficie nt in two
re sp e c ts. F ir st, on

its fa c e , th e state d e xcu se str e tc he d c re du lity . T he c ourt no te d: Th e Cle rk of the Court ’s e le c tr on ic c a se re c or d sh ow s tha t mor e tha

n a do zen ECF no tic e s w e re se nt t o c ouns e l at th e e -m a il a dd re ss p ro vid e d w he n c ouns e l e nte re d h is a pp e ara nc e in t his c a se ne arl y e ig ht months a g o. Th e re c or d in dic a te s th a t tw o E CF no tic e s w e re e-ma ile d to c ouns e l on July 16 , 2 00 8: ( 1) the no tic e of the Min ute Orde r issued that date , which counse l asser ts was not re ceive d; and (2) the “Set/Reset Dea dlines” notice statingthe new de adline of Au gu s t 1 , 2008. Counsel does not explain why

he fa iled to rec eive this particula r n o t i ce , but presumably

has had no previo u s o r subseque nt issues rece iving notice s. Notably , counsel for the plaintiff d o es not sugg est that he fa iled to rec eive notice of the August 1 deadline in the “Set/Reset Dea dlines” notice. Mem. Orde r (Aug . 12, 2008) at 2. Sec ond, the offe red e x cuse w as insufficie nt to qualify as excusable neg lect. A c la im that no tic e wa s no t re c e ive d is ins uf fi c ie nt gro un ds fo r a

vo idi ngthe pe na lty au t h o ri z ed by

the rule. See, e .g., Fox v . Am. Airlines, Inc. , 3 8 9 F
. 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 94 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (a ffirmingthe district court’s dismissal under L ocal Civil Rule 7(b) and holdingthat attorney s are “oblig ated to monitor the cour t’s docket” and the failure to do so will n o t ex cuse a n untimely

filing) . Indeed, “ [c] ounsel is under a n ob lig atio n to c he c k w ithre a so na ble fr e qu e nc y on the status of a pe nd ing c a se , a duty . . . which now may

be discha rg ed over the [i] nterne t . . . .” United States v. Bay lor , 1 6 2 Fe d
. Ap p x . 1 , 2 (D
. C
. C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Fox , 3 9 8 F
. 3 d a t1 2 9 4 )
. A c c o r d i n g l y, even c reditingthe unexplained asser tion that he did not rece ive just one of seve ral ECF notices e -mailed to him over the pa st eig h t m o n t hs, counsel has of fer ed insufficient g rounds to overlook his fa ilure to monitor the docket. Me m. O rd e r ( Au g . 1 2, 20 08 ) at 2. Th e c ourt a ff ir me d it s p ri or

de c isi on g ra nt t he de fe nd ants ’ motion to di smiss as concede d. Id. Now the plaintiff e laborates that the notices we re not re ceive d “bec ause of internet
c onne c tiv ity

pr ob le ms o n July

16 and 17 , 2 00 8. ” Pl. ’s Me m. o f P . & A. in S up p. of Pl. ’s Mo t.3

for Rec ons. (“Pl.’s Mot.”) at 2. The plaintiff’s e laboration does not alter the c ourt’s initial assessment that the ne g lect is inexcusable under the pre cede nt in this district. I n fac t, the elabor ation stretche s cre dulity even f urther, a s “interne t connec tivity problems” c ould be expected to delay

rec eipt of ema iled notices, but not destroy them. Thus, even c rediting plaintiff’s fuller

explanation, it fails to account for the neg lect of notice betwee n J uly 18, when the interne t connec tivity

problems wer e re solved, and August 12, 2008, when the plaintiff ma de its fi lin g . Pa

rt ic ula rl y wh e re , a s h e re , th e c ourt ’s iss ue d th e July 16 , 2 00 8 M inute Or de r i n
re sp on se to a

mot ion fi le d b y the pla int if

f, the c ourt

c ann ot c on c lud e that th e pla int if f’ s f a ilure to aff irmatively

chec k the docke t was excusable. In any event, a s discussed pre viously , counsel ha s an af firmative duty

to stay apprised of

the status of the c ase. See F ox v. A m. Airlines, Inc. , 389 F.3d at 1294. Plaintiff’s motion also cites Rule 60(b)(6) , a provision that per mits a court to provide relief from judg ment for a

ny “re ason justifying r elief f rom operation of the judg ment.” The Supreme Court has state d that relief under Rule 60( b)(6) should be g rante d only in circumstanc es that are truly

“extraordinar

y .” Pi on e e r I

nv estm e nt S

e rv . Co . v . B ru ns wic k

As so c . Lt d. P’ sh ip , 507 U. S. 3 80 , 3 93 (1 99 3) ; Ack erman v . United States , 340 U.S. 193, 202 (1950). Indeed, “ motions for r elief unde r Rule 60(b) a re not to be grante d unless the movant ca n demonstrate a

meritorious claim or de fense .” Le

pk ows k i v . U .S . D e p’ t of Tre as ur y , 804 F.2d 1310, 1314 ( D.C. Cir. 1984).

“ I t ha s lo ngbe e n e sta

bli sh e d th at a s a

pr e c on dit ion

to r e lie f u

nd e r R ule 60 (b ), the mov ant m

us t pr ov ide the dis tr ic t c ourt

wi th r e a so n to be lie ve that va c a tin g the jud g me nt w ill no t be an e mpt y exercise or

a futile g esture.” Mu rra

yv . D ist ric t of Colum bia , 52 F.3d 353, 355 ( citing c ases)
.4

The plaintiff ta citly

acknow ledg es this require ment, but fails to satisfy it. See Pl.’s Mot. at 4-5 (includinga sec tion headed “ Meritorious Def ense” ). Pla int if f’ s st ate me nts un de r t

he he a din g “ Me ri tor iou s D e fe ns e ” do no t a dd re ss, e ve n in oblique or summary

fashion, the de fenda

nts’ asser tions that all of the plaintiff’s cla ims fail either for f ailure to e x haust her a dminist rative r emedies or for f ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief may be g rante d. SeeDef

s.’ Mot. to Dismis s or for Summ. J . As such, the plaintiff’ s Rule 60(b) motion fails to provide a basis on which the court mig ht conclude that vacating the judg ment would not be an e x erc ise in futility . Fur thermore , inexcusable attorney neg lect is not the sort of extraordinary

circ umstances that justify relief under Rule 60( b)(6) . There fore , the cour t denies the plaintiff’s motion for r econside ration. Turningto the plaintiff’s counse l’s motion to wit hdraw , L ocal Civil Rule 83.6 requires counsel to file a

motion only

if “a trial date ha s been se t, or if a pa rty ’s written c onsent is not ob ta ine d. ” L CvR

83 .6 . H e re , th e c ourt

ha s n ot s e t a

date fo r t ri a l, a nd c ouns e l do e s n ot i nd ic a te whether the plaintiff has pr ovided written c onsent. Assuming f or the moment that the plaintiff ha s n ot p ro vid e d w ri tte n c on se nt, c ouns e l sh a ll, in a n a c c omp anyingc e rt if

ic a te of se rv ic e , li st “the pa rty ’s last known addr ess and stat[e] that the attorney has ser ved upon the pa

rty a copy of the mot ion

and a no tic e a dv isi ngthe pa

rt y to o bta in o the r c ouns e l, o r, if the pa rt y int e nd s to conduct the c ase pro se or to object to withdraw al, to so notify the Clerk in writingwithin five day s of servic e of the motion.” Id. As an initial matter the c ourt notes that the ce rtificate of service was de ficient be cause it was neither sig ned nor da ted by the plaintiff’s attorney , J ames Q. Butler . L CvR 5.3. I n addition to this defic iency , counsel fa ils to comply with Rule 83.6 by omitti ngthe “notice advising counsel to obtain other c ounsel” or by notifying the Clerk of the5

Court in writing within five da y s of servic e of the motion if the plaintiff intends on proce eding pr o s e o r o b j e c t i n g t o th e w i th dr aw a l
. A c c o r d i n g l y, i ti s th i s 2 3 r d d ay o f F e b r u ar y 2 0 0 9 , h e r e b y OR DE RE D that th e pla int if

f’ s mo tio n f

or re lie f u nd e r R ule 60 (b ) i s DE NI ED ; and it i s F UR THER

OR DE RE D that the plaintiff’s c ounsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney for the pla int if

f b e , a nd he re by is DE NI ED for f

ailure to c omply

with L ocal Civil Rule 83.6. SO ORDERED.
RI CARDO M. URBI NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge